This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
plants and
botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Here's how I made the species list: got all species from IPNI, confirmed each one with one of the other references (or confirmed it was a synonym and commented it out.) Those I couldn't find in one of the other references I labeled with a <! --?-->
Here's a list of the unconfirmed species:
The references to
Echinocactus and Mexico here are odd.
Are they nicked from some very old (before 1950 or so) book?
As far as I know, no modern sources link Echinopsis and Echinocactus together,
and Echinopsis (however you define it) are native only to
Paraguay,
Bolivia,
Argentina,
Chile,
Peru,
southern Brazil,
Uruguyay
and (one species)
Ecuador.
Echinocactus on the other hand, is restricted
to Mexico and the USA.
Jgrahn21:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)reply
You're right
[1], 1889 to be precise. If you know better than this then please edit the article to bring it up to date.
Matt21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Or maybe they are both copied from the 1889 source, just like
Matt claimed.
I wanted to do something about all this ... but at least today that would mean ripping out
most of the article, and I don't really have anything sourced to replace it with.
JöG (
talk)
21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
Lobivia
I am tangopaso on french Wikipedia.
There is a redirection of Lobivia to Echinopsis.
But Lobivia and Echinopsis are two different genus. --
81.249.154.161 (
talk)
10:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Not according to the revision which sunk
Lobivia and several other genera into E.,
just like the article explains. There could still be a separate Lobivia article, though.
JöG (
talk)
21:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply
It's not clear to me what PoWO's source is for cactus taxonomy. As I noted below, sadly, cactus taxonomy seems to remain in flux, with no clear consensus. Some sources continue to use Hunt's 2016 CITES Cactaceae Checklist, others have revised parts. Whether we should choose PoWO's approach for article titles and taxonomy isn't clear to me. (I recently revised Opuntia a bit, where Kew seems to have a lumping approach, not followed by everyone, so I left the species list with taxa PoWO doesn't accept.)
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I was thinking of separating out everything out based on what is on Wikispecies and Wikicommons but I wanted to check if there is anyone had issues with that.
Cs california (
talk)
06:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Is it really notable that a pseudonym author from the drug scene (and apparently
not a professional botanist) dislikes the merge of
Trichocereus into E.?
Especially since numerous amateur and professional growers also dislike it.
I won't remove it, but it looks silly.
JöG (
talk)
21:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)reply